1

UCC: Uniform Civil Code in India ( Samaan Naagrik Sanhitaa ) : Is it

possible ? Yes.

First let us understand what is UCC :

● Constitution’s Article 44, Section 4, Directive Principles of State Policy – Says that all
States would sincerely make attempts to make UCC.
● UNIFORM : My ONLY and FIRM belief is that in order to integrate the Social
Fabric of all RELIGIONS in India – UCC must be applied. We must ignore ALL
other matters of organizations like RSS, AIMPB, etc; who have their own
agenda’s to divide India.
● I do not believe in ANY of the religious concepts perpetuated by RSS ( I adore their
Social Services “only” ). All Religious thoughts that people want to ENFORCE and
which create a DIVIDE and which DISCRIMINATE amongst themselves and other
religions, are completely wrong to be adopted by human beings.
● Unity : Take example of UNIFORM in schools – they are the same for the Rich and
Poor. Take example of school children walking in uniforms and we see them from a
distance – how similar they look and feel to us !! Imagine a school child is lost in a
crowd – how easy it would be for us to FIND him/her ? Similarly Uniformity will HELP
India go forward. We have to decide/define what is Uniform….we cannot make ONE
SIZE of uniform ( shirt/pant/shoes ) for all students !! Uniform means “adjustments” in
each child’s ESSENTIAL requirements and then making all other basic things as
common/uniform. Same concept of UNITY goes for Cricket which brings unity amongst
us. Same goes for Currency-Notes, One constitution, Films, Television, Flights, Buses,
Railways, etc wherein people are United by these factors.
● In UCC we can have 4 options : 1) All religions/tribes to follow their own Civil Code 2)
Same as 1 but remove ONLY those respective laws of the respective religions, which
discriminate their own people, or go against the constitution of India and then go ahead
and adopt all progressive laws that are mutually possible to be agreed by these people
3) One common law made for all families of all religions of India – but give them certain
exceptions or certain freedoms which are traditional to them for centuries 4) Absolute
homogeneity to all religions ( all HAVE to follow one law of the land Lex-Loci ).
● Uniform Civil Code will not stop traditions ( Rasm ) followed by each religion and
accepting the VAST cultures within and other religions ( same thing is written in the
Manifesto of BJP :P ;) ).

● CIVIL​ – All Laws which are not Criminal-Laws. Matters between two Legal
Persons/Family/Entities/companies/organizations/committees/departments/etc are
called as CIVIL-Matters. This includes Family Laws, Property Laws, Contract Laws &
Torts ( Criminal laws in India are under Indian Penal Code IPC – a Legal ​ v/s​ Indian
Government. Punishment is given by government ). Civil matters mostly end with
fighting for own rights and paying/seeking of Damages/compensation. Certain countries
who follow Shariat Personal Law ( for eg Iran ) “could” consider the criminal activity as
CIVIL and can give a verdict as Eye-For-An-Eye, which means one man can punish the
other in the same manner ! Thank God that India is not there and would never be there
( thanks to the British to consider such cases as CRIMINAL and fall under IPC and
punishment HAS to happen in India as per Court’s verdict under IPC ) !!
 2
● CODE​ – can mean Bill (before passing) / ACT…can mean LAW…..compilation of many
different rules put together ( all procedures, processes, methods of breaking laws,
punishments, etc are to be CODIFIED )…..

Ambedkar said it in the parliament once that India is bound by 11 laws ( IPC, CPRC, CPC,
Contracts-Laws, etc ) and so why not UPC ? Most disputes in India about Uniform Civil Codes
are basically disputes (discriminatory) in ​
FAMILY​ Laws. So basically, I would be discussing
only about Family Laws, ​disputed angles​ , etc, in this article of mine. I would go into History
too ( because to understand the present and direct the future, we need to know the History )

Problem today in India is that people do not WANT to know in details

about what all should be UNIFORM in the eyes of law. They are afraid
to even discuss it. My proposal for UCC :
1) India to do the following ( positives and negatives of all religions
are mentioned below ):
a) One ​Indian​ Marriage Act ( Court/Registered Marriage
b) One ​Indian​ Succession Act
c) ​Indian​ Adoption Act ( adoption to be allowed for minorities too)
d) ​Indian​ Guardianship Act
● There should be no problems with SANE people when laws are changed
because they do “not” attack DIVERSITY, but abolish only DISCRIMINATION.
● All positive-traditions of each religion, can be followed by them without any
restrictions.

2) Removing the negatives of each religion :

● Acts/laws which cannot converse with the SENSIBILITIES of the 21st Century
and are not a PART of the religion and/or are not an ESSENTIAL part of a
religion – ​should be abolished. Rest practices/traditions of EACH religion,
SHOULD continue in India.
3) Finding a MIDDLE WAY and adopting ONE unified code would not
be difficult, ONLY if one reads the below details CAREFULLY,
discusses them, argues each point and proposes what HE/SHE
thinks is right in his view ( keeping “part-of” and “essential
part-of” religious aspects - intact and removing/abolishing ALL
other discriminatory or unnecessary laws ) :
: us understand what NEGATIVES are there in this
MAJORITY-UNIFORM-CIVIL-COtoday’s Codes , so that the discriminatory or bad
practices are abolished altogether ( BUT keeping “part-of” and “essential part-of”
religious aspects intact )
 3

Hindu’s
● Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Baudh, VeerShaiv, Lingaayat, Aarya/Brahma/Praarthanaa
Samaaj, etc – they are considered as Hindu’s by the Constitution of India.
● There are more than 100 crore SUCH people in India and SUCH people are
ALREADY following one UNIFIED Civil Code !! Why invent another wheel ?
● Hindu Laws have come from the ANCIENT Veda’s and Smriti’s. Most laws in
Hindu’s come from ManuSmriti (Manav Dharm Shaastra), Yagyavalka & Narad
Smriti. As more religions came into India like Buddhism, Jainism, etc. they
adopted to the basic laws of the land. In 1765 East India company (EIC) started
purchasing Civil Rights in India. Warren Hastings presented the Judicial Plan in
1772. In 1773 the EIC formed a Supreme Court. 1781 the Judicial plan was
modified and told the public to follow a) Hindu Personal Laws ( Manusmriti,
Yagyavalka Smriti ) b) Shariat Personal Laws c) All other religions will follow the
English Laws.
● British started to CORRECT the Hindu laws since 1829 by Lord William Bentinck
( with persuasion and great efforts from some progressive-minded Hindus like
Raja Rammohan Roy, IshwarChand Vidyasagar, etc…much much before
Ambedkar and the likes ) eg. GROSS DISCRIMINATING practices like Sati,
female infanticide, not being able to marry for widows, caste-based
discriminations like untouchability, Dowry, no property rights for women, etc, not
giving property to most women, no minimum age of marriage, etc. British did
changes ONLY with the Hindu Civil Laws. There was opposition from CERTAIN
“non-progressive” Hindu’s, every time a new law was proposed/passed by the
British, but the system was implemented and lateron everyone accepted all such
proposed laws ( OTH Hindu’s today, are surely VERY happy/grateful for bringing
these progressive laws. For eg. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, Jan Sangh,
Rajendra Prasad, etc, opposed Hindu Code Bill….they opposed for a long time
and after some years they argued that it has to be applicable for all religions.
Nehru said that he wanted to do it for Hindu’s first so that more than 80% of
people could be on the same level for all laws, remove discriminating laws and
please the minorities by telling them that “being a Hindu, I am reforming Hindu
Laws FIRST”. Hindu Code Bills were passed in 1955-56. But next many years
Nehru did not keep his promise of implementing a unified code for all religions.
He conveniently, but thankfully amended the DOWRY Prohibition act in 1961, but
never did anything on UCC for other religions. ). In 1834 the British made the first
“Law Commission” ( Lord Macaulay ) introducing laws like IPC, etc. Lord
Dalhousie brought in laws in 1850 for the Hindus-ONLY. 1853 had one more
Charter Act and one more Law Commission ( Sir John Romily ) introducing laws
like CPC, etc. 1958 British took control from East India Co. Queen decided to
make codes as per British Laws. One after the other laws were “passed”. CPC
1859, 1860 IPC and CRPC was passed in 1861. In 1861 they had the 3​rd​ Law
Commission to make more laws for Hindu’s ( Sir Henry Maine ) and passed laws
like Indian Evidence Act 1862, Indian Contracts Act 1872, The Oaths Act 1873,
 4
NGO act, Trust Act, etc. Based on their own evolution, 1870 onwards the British
started to amend Hindu CIVIL Codes with relation to Caste, Gender, etc ( based
on Manusmriti, but removed all DISCRIMINITORY matters from Manusmriti ).
They touched only Hindu Codes because they got support from the
PROGRESSIVE-Hindu-Leaders ( whereas for THE other religion, they faced
opposition to change CIVIL codes and also maybe they wanted to DIVIDE and
RULE India ). Hindu Special Marriage act 1873 came in force ( Inter caste
marriage, Inter religious marriage, etc ) which was amended in 1954, which is still
in force with some amendments. 1891, 1930 & 1978 had the minimum
marriage-AGE limits put on Hindu’s ( Age of Consent Act, Child Marriage
Restraint or the Sharada Act). In 1874, 1928, 1937 the British made laws for
Hindus-Women-ONLY ( Married Women’s Property Acts, Inheritance Acts,
Deshmukh Act ). Women got absolute right (to sell too ) on her own property and
Limited right on acquired property after marriage ( use the property but not sell it
) – also Hindu-Widows got the same rights.
● Then the British started debating on the Hindu Code Bills in 1941 ( under a
committee headed by Mr. B N Rau. B N Rau was equally important as Ambedkar
in India’s history ). Debates like Bigamy and Alimony for the 2​nd​
wife, Divorce,
Succession, etc, for HINDU’s were initiated by the British. B N Rau gave the
detailed report or the draft of the Hindu Code Bill (HCB) in Feb 1947 !!! A select
committee was formed in Independent India to discuss the Hindu Code Bill.
Ambedkar, ShymaprasadM & BaldevSingh formed the committee. Ambedkar
resigned in 1950 in disgust, one reason was no result on HCB. Nehru was not
elected in 1950 by the public. So Nehru said that he will have in Manifesto that
he will pass Hindu Code Bill if CONgress is elected. Nehru became prime
minister in 1951-52 after voting of public by HUGE margin 364 seats out of 479.
He was also the Party head till 1954. He could have EASILY brought in Uniform
Civil Code for ALL RELIGIONS. But no…the 125-year-old tradition of British was
followed by Nehru i.e. ONLY Hindu laws to be changed !
● Nehru passed first part of HCB in 1955 ( Hindu Marriage Act HCM ), other 3 parts
of HCB were passed in 1956 ( Hindu Succession Act HSA, Hindu Minority &
Guardianship Act & Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act ). Regular amendments
were done in HCB after independence. Almost all PROGRESSIVE thoughts were
applied in these HCB ( minor discriminatory laws were lateron modified by the
Supreme Courts in various judgements ). Hindu acts/laws are meant for people
of DIVERSE thinking’s – so many Gods, so many Books, de-centralized thinking,
various religious organizations in Hindu’s, various religious places !! It is EVER
encompassing.
Problems in Hindu Laws even today :
1) Sapinda Vivaah ( cannot marry same “Gotra” would-be-spouse. 5 generations from
Father’s side and 3 generations from mother’s side !! ).
2) Please keep on adding as I could not find any more “discriminatory” or “unnecessary”
(by religious needs) laws.
 5

MINORITY Laws in India – Details, Positives & Negatives :

Christians -
● Major are Catholic/Protestant. India has around 2 to 3% Christians. In India there
are many Syrian-Catholics. Northeast states like Nagaland, Mizoram its 87-88%,
Meghalaya 75%, Goa 25%, Kerala 18%, TN 5/6%.
● Laws applicable : Christian Marriage Act 1872 CMA, Indian Divorce Act 1869
IDA, Indian Succession Act 1925 ISA, Guardians-ship & Wards Act 1890 )
● Christians are mostly progressive and so whatever changes were done in their
laws in India and they were accepted because of the merits of the law and their
social correctness. Some CHANGES brought by Christians after independence -
important COURT Cases : ​ 
​a) Mrs Mary Roy 1986 ( she helped abolish the act
where she was staying, the Travancore Succession Act, which prohibited Girl
children could not get their share in the property of their parents ). Supreme
Court decided, that this TSA was not morally correct and so they abolished the
TSA and Cochin Succession Act - and only the Indian Succession Act 1925
remained along with with Mary Roy’s amendment. This problem of girls not
having share in property was a common problem in TODAY’s DEVELOPED
nations too and all of them abolished this BLACK law and they have no problems
as such like riots, protests etc.​

b
​ ) Mr. John Velamottam 2003 ( ISA has two parts
Interstate which means that WILL was not made before the death and
Testamentary Succession where WILL is made before death. But ISA
Testamentary Succession section 118 said that a man cannot donate his wealth
to a charitable organization if any of his RELATIVE is alive !!! Also the name of
his WIFE was omitted from the relative’s list!! ) Supreme Court abolished this
BLACK law. ​
c​) Pragati Verghese 1997 ( IDA Section 10 said that a Man can
take divorce if he found that his wife committed adultery. But a Wife had to “find”
an ADDITIONAL crime with the husband, in order to be eligible to get a divorce !
) Supreme Court abolished this BLACK law. ​ 
d
​ ) Mr. Albert Anthony 2015 ( IDA
Section 10A said that the time required for separation before the divorce was 2
years ) Supreme Court abolished this BLACK law and told the government to
make it same as Hindu, Parsi Divorce Acts i.e. a 1 year separation period for all.
Some more improvements are going on within the government and the law would
soon be passed ( like the case could be filed at ANY place of domicile after
separation, etc )
● Christians Laws and Hindu laws have much things in common.

Parsis​ -
● I was SHOCKED to know this that there are only around 70 thousand Parsi’s
living in India !!
● Laws applicable : Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act 1936 PMDA, Indian Succession
Act ISA Sections 50 to 56, Guardians-ship & Wards Act 1890
 6
● PMDA - when Divorce happens, then respectable people from their community
are asked to intervene and try and reconciliation divorce.
● If Parsi man weds Non-Parsi ( like JRD Tata, Smriti Irani ) then their kids will lead
a Parsi life. But if the opposite happens, then the Kids would not be considered
as Parsi’s. Things need to change in this aspect because this is discrimination.

Jews -
● India had around 30 thousand Jews in the peak time…1948 after formation of
Israel many went there and (another shock) today it is said only approx 10k live
in India.
● Laws applicable : No law on Marriage and Divorce ( allowed to follow their own
laws ), Indian Succession Act ISA Sections 50 to 56, Guardians-ship & Wards
Act 1890

Tribes –
● Article 371A ( for Nagaland ),
● 371F ( for Mizoram ),
● Above two articles say that the constitutional powers are applicable to these 2
states when the Vidhan Sabha passes a resolution in some specific matters ( 1)
“Customary Laws/practices 2) Civil/criminal laws in some matters )
● Article 244 Schedule 6 – talks about 10 tribal areas in India ( like 3 in Meghalaya,
3 in Assam, 3 in Mizoram and 1 in Tripura, ) – “District Autonomous Councils” are
adopted by these tribal areas - Civil/criminal laws in some matters are given to
these tribal areas.
● Laddakh would soon be included in this 6​ th​
Schedule.
● Tribals can be included in phase 2 of the “new-UCC” ( we must give them few
more years to come into mainstream of the new/modern/developed India )

Goa–
● Goa already has UCC applied for all people of all religions that have domicile in Goa (
Portuguese Civil Code 1870 )
● Positives/Neutral : 1) Succession rights are equal between husband and wife ( if not
agreed specifically at the time of marriage ). Parents HAVE to give 50% of wealth to
children and no discrimination between girl/boy
● Negatives/Issues ( could be removed/abolished ) : 1) Gentile Hindu’s were allowed
Bigamy if the wife cannot give birth to a child till 30 years of age ( with wife’s consent ).
2) Only Catholics were not allowed Divorce. 3) Only husband has the right to utilize his
wealth as he wants.
● Goa can easily adopt any proposed UCC by the government that is accepted by all
religions.
 7

THIS​ minority religion has around ​20 crore​ population in India. Herein-afterwards I am
going to call them SHARIAT/THEY/THEM/THEIR/THESE/M and no need to repeat the
name of the religion everywhere - as I respect EVERY religion in the world and I do not
want people to have any wrong notions about me or my ENTIRE article, which is not
directed towards ANY religion per say :
● Shia ( who believe followers to be on the official lineage of Prophet Mohd. Paigamber
PBUH; PM ) are 10 to 15% in the world. They are a BIT relaxed in Shariat laws - like
they do not have Tripple Talaaq, etc. In India out of the many sects of Shia, the most
prominent is the IMAAMI sect.
● Sunni ( who believe that the scholars of each era decide the lineage of PM ) are 85 to
90% in the world. In India, out of the many sects of Sunni, the most prominent is the
HANEEFII-HANAFII sect.
● Laws prescribed in India are according to Shariat ( Divine Law ) and Shiite and Sunni’s
COULD interpret certain laws differently.
● Shariat in India was brought by Auranzeb (Sunni-Hanafi ) under his book called
Fatwaa-E-Aalamgiri – and this book became the BASIS of the ShariatPersonalLaw;
SPL.
● It has 4 sources of inspirations :
● Quraan ( Prophet Mohd. Paigamber PBUH achieved this by conversation with Allah ),
● Hadith-Hadees ( “Sunnah” which tells about PM spoke himself as sermons/laws &
“Deeds” that people around PM’s speeches of laws, recorded for posterity ),
● Qeeyas-Qiyas is the document made by THEIR Scholars who assemble a set of rules
that INTERPRET Quraan and Hadees - in case of any conflicting information.
● Ijmaa - Scholars will sit on NEW issues and with a common consensus and include it in
the Shariat laws

● Criminal Laws - Hanifi in the Mugal Times introduced by Auranzeb in India :

● Hudood ( against Allah ) – e.g. Zinaa (Adultery), Robbery and the punishments were
like throwing stones, cutting arms/legs, etc.
● Qisaas ( between two people ) – e,g.His relatives have the authority to pardon the
accused, etc
● Taazer - Neither Hudood nor Qisaa ( e.g. not succeeded in kidnapping/robbery/etc )
● The Procedural Criminal laws of Haneefi - Examples :
● Zia Ul Huq in 1979 introduced in Pakistan Hudood - For eg if a woman was raped, SHE
had to get 4 “male” witnesses, else it would be considered as Zinaa ( Mukhtar Bai case
in Pakistan ) !!
● India was SAVED by the British in CRIMINAL laws for THIS Minority. British passed in
1860 & 1861 the Indian Penal Code 1860 IPC and the CRPC ( CRPC 1973 is now in
force ).
● IPC & CRPC are followed by ALL people in India as a UNIFORM CRIMINAL CODE.
THIS minority does not demand in India, that they must have Hudood/Qisa/Taazer !! (
Same way that Hindu’s did not want to bring the so called barbaric conditions laid down
in one of the hundred versions of Manusmriti )
● Its UNIFIED for Criminal Justice System ( few BLACK exceptions like IPC Section 494 ,
etc, which definitely have DISCRIMINATION ) !!
 8

● British started to CORRECT the Hindu laws since 1829 till Feb 1947 ( refer the Hindu
section above to get the DETAILS of PROGRESSIVE laws brought into India for the
Hindu’s ) !!

● After Auranzeb/Mugal rule over THIS religion in India, the British too did not do ANY
change in THEIR laws till 1936 !! In 1937 British parliament passed a 2 or 3 page of
“SHARIAT PERSONAL LAW ( SPL )”. SPL said that Shariat will be applicable to all
people following THIS religion. It said that there is an optional way of certain person
joining the law by filling a piece of FORM, which is then governed by the SPL. The
British CONVENIENTLY left out the PROCEDURAL part of implementing the laws in
SPL !! British did not describe which COURTS these people could go in case of
dispute…so basically SPL meant LITERALLY “Miyaan Biwii Raazii Toa Kyaa Karegaa
Qaazii”
In 1939 the British made one act for THEM “Shariat Dissolution if Marriage Act” (
women “could” go to courts for a divorce )
● In THEIR normal world they lived without any legal binding written anywhere : Qaazii is
basically a “Judge” appointed by THEM. If Qaazi cannot do anything about judgement,
or the case is difficult/different, then matters can go to a MUFTI. Mufti’s are allowed to
issue Fatwaa’s ( In normal CIVILIZED world of Indian law, for Hindu’s and other
minorities, the constitution has already given provision of Article 132, 133, 143, 228, a
“Substantial Question of Law”. Lower courts asks the higher court to define the problem
and its solution. Supreme courts can then give a written solution, by law, to follow ).
More complicated problems of THEIRS can be taken by Mufti’s to an ULEMAA.
● 1939 there was an amendment to SPL regarding DIVORCE. Section 5, had a
description of a woman allowing to go to court for divorce. They left out to implement a
lot of things like provision for Alimony, etc.
● THEIR marriages are Nikaahnaama/CONTRACTS ( Qubool, Qubool, Qubool by
both…..then there is a system of assuring money to the bride BEFORE the marriage.
called as MEHR. Mehr means that the groom has to give a certain amount of money to
the bride after marriage. After this payment, then Bride cannot demand a single Rupee
if the husband divorced her. Recent research/surveys done by Bhaaratiya M Mahila
Aandolan Society ( led by a woman named Zaakia Soman ) found out that in almost
84% of the cases, the MEHR amounts agreed in these marriage “contracts” were from
ZERO rupees to Rs 1000 !!!!! And THEY argue that they do not have an Alimony
system because they already have a MEHR system and maximum of 3 months of
maintenance of the ex-wife after the third Talaaq word, or till the baby is born if she is
pregnant just before the divorce !!! ( All other religions, have to pay Alimony to the
ex-wife after divorce, if she is not earning or is not self-dependent )
● Upto 4 marriages are allowed ( though in India, especially in educated people, the rate
of 4 marriages has already decreased a lot….now need of the time is to change the law
to 1 marriage ). Quraan agreed for a new marriage in THOSE MEDIEVAL TIMES, in
two specific conditions : 1) A man can marry a 2​ /3​ /4​ woman if the sex-ratio of
nd​ rd​ th​

Male-Female in the society is in imbalance ( THEIR men were always in battlefield with
PM, to promote the religion, dying fighting. I have personally read this in the museum of
Salalah,Oman that there were wars all over the region THOSE days, which had a cry
“you are with us or against us” ) 2) If the man can give proper and SAME respect to all
 9
the women he marries. Both these points are not applicable in the current modern
times in civilized worlds, as women have self-respect and are self-reliant in all senses.
Pakistan has made lives very difficult for men to marry second time ( legal obstacles ).
Same with Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, etc have almost stopped 4
marriages.
● Nikaah-Halaalaa system of Remarriage to the same husband after a wrong/mistaken
Divorce - is one more atrocious system which screamed a ban. Halaalaa literally meant
“Permitted/Allowed”. Woman who was given a divorce, if she wanted to re-marry the
same man, had to marry a THIRD man first, have sex with him and that third man has
to give a divorce to the woman. Only then the first husband could marry her. What
happens of the third man refuses to divorce ! Please google and refer the India Today
secret survey of Nikaah Halala ( Qaazi’s etc do Nikaah Halala with fees of approx. 20k
to 150k ).
● Methods of Divorce : Talaaq (97%), Khula, Mubaarat, Haq-e-Tafweez, Leeyaan,
Khiyaar, Court
● Talaaq – Only Man can initiate
● Talaaq-e-Sunnat ( as pet the will of PM ) : Two categories : 1) Talaaq-e-Ahasan –
where the 2 words could be said with years of time period between each Talaaq 2)
Talaaq-e-Biddat – husband
● Talaaq-e-Biddat ( Innovative - Tripple Talaaq can come into this category. Shiites do
not accept this ) – 3 words in succession, give Mehr amount ( 84% of the times
extremely small amount ) and tell her to get out of his life along with children !! Qaazi’s
as time passed, allowed on Email, SMS, Whatsapp, etc !!!
● Khula – Woman has an option to initiate, Man HAS to agree on it, If initiated by a
woman then she has to pay to the man money (max upto Mehr, decided by Qaazi)
● Progressive measures :
● Mubaarat – Mutual consent, qaazi/court
● Tafweez – promise/commitment made by husband at the time of marriage that he gives
right of divorce to the wife
● Liyaan – if husband cannot prove that wife has done adultery, then it is a ground for a
divorce
● Khiyaar – If the wife is married before puberty, then she has the right to take divorce
after she becomes an adult
● Progressive : Shufaa – If the property is divided into 4 parts for 4 brothers and 1 brother
wants to sell his part and go away, then the other brothers have the FIRST right to
purchase that part of property at the asking rate.
● Son will get 2/3​rd​ and daughter will get 1/3​
rd​
of the wealth of the father
● THIS man can donate only upto 1/3​ of his property to those other than his children (
rd​

Hindu man can donate EVERYTHING that he himself has earnt, to anybody he wishes
)

Indian Constitutional Aspects :

THEY defend that Shariat Personal Law cannot be amended as per Constitution Article nos
25 & 26.
Article 25 – Religious Freedom
Clause 1 – Rights a) Right to freedom of Conscience b) Right to profess religion, right to
practice religion, right to propagate religion
 10
Clause 2 – Reasonable Restrictions/Limitations to Religious Freedom : a) Public
Order/Discipline b) Public Health c) Morality d) Other Fundamental Rights e) Social Welfare
or Reforms in a Religion f) Secular aspects associated to Religious activities
(economic/political/etc aspects )
Doctrine of Essentiality – could adopted by Supreme Court to bring in UCC….

Article 26 – Freedom of Religious Affairs

Same as Clause 2 above – all parameters apply

Article 13.1 – All laws “in force” before formation of constitution ( Pre-Const-Laws in force ) -
all such laws can be dismantled if they contradict Fundamental Rights
Article 13.2 – Post-Constitutional-Laws – if against FR then that part can be discarded with
appeal to HC (art 226) or SC (art 32).
Article 13.3a – Pre-Const-Laws in force – which were made by some legislative body, or
some other Authority
Article 13.3b - Post-Constitutional-Laws – but included “customs”

● A case was filed by Mr. Narasu Appa Mali – in 1951 – Hindu from Bombay State.
Earlier, in 1946 an act by Bombay State was passed “Prevention of Hindu Bigamy Act”
– punishment for more than 1 marriage with Compoundable offence (jail compulsory).
Bombay High Court was presented with arguments such as 1) Pinddaan – needs a
SON to do it and so I must be allowed to marry second time – FR 2) All religions have a
punishment, why not THAT minority has permission ? It is against Article 14 & 15. 3)
IPC Section 494 has punishment for Bigamy – and IPC is supposed to be applicable to
ALL 4) IPC 494 Bigamy is a Compoundable crime ( wife pardons and mutually case is
closed – and punishment is reduced or only fine ). Judges argued that SPL 1937 was
not an actual law and THEIR rules were mere “customs” – which fell under 13.3.b for
post constitutional laws ( it did not fall under 13.1 and hence SPL could not be
abolished ). They must have thought that there should not be any more confusion and
riots in India, just after the independence. The judges said that Personal laws cannot be
reviewed through Article 13. And most interesting part is that nobody went to Supreme
Court and the matter died completely for many decades. 2018 Shabrimala SC, Justice
DYChandrachud opined that Narasu Appa Mali’s judgement, its reasoning was wrong
and we look like a rule of religion.

● Shah Banu Case – She was told to leave the house after 40 years of marriage ( he had
married second time when she was just 14-15 years ) and her husband, a lawyer
himself, told her that she would get Rs 200 per month. She was paid this for around 3
years and then payment was stopped. She appealed, made case against CRPC Sec
125 and then this case became big. Ahmed Khan gave Talaaq and told the court that
now she deserves Mehr & 3 months Alimony ( As per SPL ) which was total Rs 5400.
Court studied and gave an order to give Rs 25 per month. Husband rejected based on
principle and went to High Court. High court, in 1980, revised the amount to Rs 179 (
based on his revised earnings ). Matter went to Supreme Court and Supreme Court in
1985, ordered to give Rs 10000 one time. Supreme court also asked the Govt to make
a UCC.
 11
● Shah Banu case made big news and Rajiv Gandhi, with unprecedented Majority in both
houses, changed the CRPC ( Criminal Law Changed ) to satisfy this minority, after
AIMPLB made big noise ( As it is Sikhs massacre made them against CONgress ) !!
CRPC Section 125, right of THESE women to go against husbands was DISCARDED
from the constitution by Rajiv Gandhi in parliament ( this was a BLACK matter, worse
than Emergency – as Criminal Law was changed/removed !! ). The Act passed was
named as “M Women Protection Of Rights On Divorce” ( read it again – did not follow ?
read the name of the act AGAIN…..with this act, THESE women never got Alimony for
next 2.5 decades !! Just that with this new act, children got some money till 2 years of
age !!! )

● When Hindus got angry after satisfying THESE minority by modifying the CRPC Sect
25, Rajiv Gandhi gave the CLEARANCE for Hindu’s to pray at the Ram Janma Bhoomi
Temple ( which was closed since 1948 !!! )

● Supreme court stopped talking about Alimony to THESE women !! 1997 came one
case of Ms Noor Sabah Khaatoon. She was given Talaaq and was not earning, children
were small. Supreme Court gave an order that the male child should get money till he
becomes Adult and Girl child till she marries!!

● EXTREME Important Case was fought by a Lawyer Mr Daniel Latifi ( same who fought
for Shah Banu in 1980s ) in 2001. He fought on the 1985 Act of Rajiv and caught the
words in them “Reasonable & Fair Amount”. Daniel fought for 1) She should lead Same
standard of living as before Divorce 2) Money in proportion to the Income Levels of
Husband 3) Money enough to have Respect for THESE women and…and….and…if
not lumpsump, this Reasonable & Fair Amount” in instalments for the REST OF HER
LIFE !!!

● TTT – 2003 Chhotu Pathaan Talaq case – Bombay High Court said that Quraan says
that all roads should be closed before Talaq – and so HC said that all possible means
are to be adopted, 1 elderly from each side should sit with the couple and if only
serious discussions taken to avoid Talaq fail, only then the proposed Talaq is approved.
Only the court is to decide of these meetings were serious enough. There has to be an
evidence that proper Talaaq matters are submitted to a Qazi.
● Shaayraa Banu Case 2017 was another milestone in TTT
● 2019 TTT was abolished, cognizable non-bailable, compoundable, punishable by law,
Jail.

● Polygamy & Nikaah Halal will be taken up by Indian Govt, as soon as Covid is over ( in
fact the farmers protest ;) :P :D ). Same logic of TTT will be applied by Supreme Court (
Is this practice part of THE RELIGION and/or is this practice an ESSENTIAL part of the
religion )

Those who oppose Article 25-26 ( who are in support of UCC ), take help of the following
articles :
● Article 14 – provides Equality Before Law & Equal protection of Laws
 12
● Article 15 :
Clause 1 says there would be no discrimination based on
Sex/Caste/Race/Religion/Place of Birth
Clause 2 says – state can make laws for Women/Children if they are wronged.
● Article 21 – Right to life & right to Personal Freedom but also MUST be treated with a
Respectful Life
● Article 44 – State must try to achieve UCC !!

● Adoption was not allowed BY LAW for ALL minorities in India !! This can easily be done
under UCC and all should accept, as it is not harming them or their religion in any way.
Shabana Hashmi Case 2014 – Supreme Court already gave a judgement in her favor.

Views on IPC and how each of these Penal Codes need to be edited/abolished :
● IPC Section 377 certain aspects are not good as per Indian Supreme Court. The
MORALS of the 19th Century and that of the 21st Century are COMPLETELY different.
For eg. homosexuality and adultery are not crimes and cannot/should-not be
punished/jailed for that.
● Similarly IPC Section 309 - Supreme Court has ruled recently that nobody can be
JAILED for attempt of suicide.
● Supreme Court is making decisions and abolishing the 1860 IPC acts/laws gradually
case by case. This HAS to be done in all cases without exceptions.